Kiernan v. McKinley

Fourth Circuit

Kiernan v. McKinley

359 F. App'x 381

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided December 30, 2009·No. No. 09-7551·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Javen Kiernan appeals the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Kiernan v. McKinley, No. 1:09-cv-00387-LMB-TCB, 2009 WL 2175639 (E.D.Va. July 20, 2009). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Javen Kiernan appeals the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Kiernan v. McKinley, No. 1:09-cv-00387-LMB-TCB, 2009 WL 2175639 (E.D.Va. July 20, 2009). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Kiernan v. McKinley, 359 F. App'x 381 (4th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

359 F. App'x 381 (Kiernan v. McKinley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related